Dillon Meeting III

Meeting Summary

Dillon Sage Grouse Local Working Group

April 29, 2004

Welcome/Introduction

Anne Cossitt welcomed the group and reviewed the agenda, which included developing local
strategies for weeds and power lines/generation facilities.

Listing Update

Lori Nordstrom of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provided an overview of the process for
listing species under the Endangered Species Act. On April 21, 2004, FWS announced its "90 day
finding" after completing an evaluation of three petitions to list the greater sage-grouse range
wide as either threatened or endangered. The Service determined that the petitions and other
available information provide substantial biological information indicating that further review of
the status of the species is warranted.

Based on the status review, the Service will make one of three possible determinations by end of
December 2004 or early 2005:

Listing is not warranted - in which case no further action will be taken.

Listing as threatened or endangered is warranted. In this case, the Service will publish a
proposal to list. Generally, there is a one-year period between the time a species is proposed and
the final decision.

Listing is warranted but precluded. This means the species is added to the federal list of
candidate species, and the proposal to list is deferred. There would be subsequent annual reviews
of the finding until such time as either a listing proposal is published, or a not warranted
finding is made based on new information

Questions/comments from participants included:

Does the FWS consider every petition? Answer: FWS looks at all petitions, but only those with
sufficient documentation trigger the process for a "90 day finding." The petitions for sage grouse
in this case were very well documented.

Questions were raised about incentive programs, such as the Sagebrush Initiative, as a means to
improve habitat. Cossitt indicated that there will be a presentation on the Sagebrush Initiative
program at the next meeting.

The deadline for new information on the status review is June 21. It was suggested at the
Glasgow local working group meeting that the local working groups provide FWS with a status report
of their work. Participants at this meeting in Dillon indicated that would be a good idea as
well.

Follow-up: Anne Cossitt will draft a status update to send to FWS on behalf of the
Miles City local working group.

Noxious Weed Management

Cossitt briefly reviewed the description of the noxious weed issues related to sage grouse
habitat (which begins on page 62 of the draft plan issued March 2004). The group was then asked to
review conservation actions for noxious weeds (beginning on page 63 of the draft plan).
Participants were asked to work in small groups to answer four questions for each conservation
action:

What is already being done?

Who would take the actions (what would landowners do? Agencies? Others?)
What would be the timeframe for the action (When would it start? When would it be completed?
Or would it be ongoing?)

What resources would be needed to accomplish the action?

Participants were also asked to identify resources to answer any questions they couldn't
address (e.g., information sources, etc.)

Participants' recommendations on conservation actions in the draft state plan for noxious weeds
are as follows:

Recommendation: There is already a fair amount of mapped data. Work is being done by BLM, Forest
Service, weed districts, state agencies, and by some individual land owners. There should be better
coordination and information sharing among all with mapped data.

Goal 2: Conservation Action # 1. Develop habitat-specific weed management plans
for known sage grouse ranges, using the inventory and map information developed in the action
described above.

Recommendation: These agencies (BLM, Forest Service, weed districts, etc.) already have weed
plans, but they are not specific to weeds in sage brush habitat. As for mapping, there should be
better coordination among agencies in planning and taking action regarding plans. If there is a
need to spray, the county weed district should take the lead in coordinating spray efforts. (The
group that reported on this goal indicated that they were unaware of large sagebrush areas with
significant weed infestations.)

Recommendation/Comments: Counties, railroads, and others are already proactive on this. Some
agency efforts are very effective. Need more education and advertising about the issue (teach the
general public, including hunters). Encourage car washes. Identify new weed types coming into the
area. Educate local nursery operators about plant species that may start as ornamental but become
invasive.

Travel plans being developed by various agencies should recognize effects of construction and
make plans to limit disturbance, educate construction crews, and mitigate as necessary

Need to develop a common, standardized database for mapping that all agencies can submit
information to.

Goal 5: Ensure that land managers and users (general public) are educated about
the threat noxious weeds pose to native plant communities and work together to find appropriate
management solutions. (7 conservation actions)

Recommendations:

Some recreationists, including hunters, and some landowners (may especially be an issue with
smaller land parcels) could care less about the effects of their activities on spread of weeds, and
no amount of education will change that.

Counties already do a major portion of weed control and have established priorities.

Appears agencies are already doing a pretty good job training and informing staff about weed
issues.

If people aren't sure about how to apply a herbicide (and how it might affect sage brush
habitat), they should ask before they apply it.

County weed districts, BLM, Forest Service already have follow-up procedures for treated areas,
including site monitoring. Individuals are also likely doing this, although the procedures may be "
in their heads" rather than written policies.

The county is already providing training for local, state, and federal agencies.

Agency field staff are already being educated on weed identification, weed spread and ways to
treat weeds.

Timing of application is important as well for minimizing effects to non-target plant species
and also to sage grouse. Recognize that cheatgrass can be a real problem. Observation: some of the
more selective, specialized products are much more expensive.

Summary of Group Recommendations: Cossitt asked the group if there were any items
listed that someone did not agree with or had special concerns about. The following items were
identified:

Add to the list—need to have ATVs comply with recommendations, e.g., wash ATV before heading
out to avoid spreading weed seeds from other locations

Question: Is there an enforcement issue with weed control? Where does the money come from for
weed control enforcement? Is there a need for a "set-aside" to deal with non-compliance?

Power Lines and Generation Facilities

Cossitt briefly reviewed the description of power line issues related to sage grouse habitat
(which begins on page 67 of the draft plan issued March 2004). The group was then asked to review
conservation actions in small groups and make recommendations for actions similar to the exercise
for noxious weeds.

Participants' recommendations on conservation actions in the draft state plan for power lines
and generation facilities are as follows:

It was noted that golden eagles are the primary raptor species that kill sage grouse in the
Dillon area. Power lines provide perches for eagles and other raptors that enhance their ability to
spot and hunt sage grouse in flat sage brush country where high elevation perches would otherwise
not exist.

Recommendations: There are no existing fossil fuel generation facilities in the area nor are any
expected over the next 5-10 years. The group decided that no local actions are needed for this
issue topic for the Dillon area.

Positive prevention measures now (start with information and working with private individuals
as wind generation facilities are sited now.

Ensure mitigation measures are in place before wind generation facilities are sited

Need for more information/research: does blade design or color make a difference for reducing
collision fatalities?

Could funding from mitigation come from tax incentive programs?

Map of eagle nests would be helpful in determining where to avoid wind generation
facilities

New permits for wind generation facilities should address sage grouse-related issues; if
easements are necessary to convey power from wind generation facility to other location then
easements may be required and that could be a trigger for some mitigation

Wrap-up

Cossitt asked the group if they had any suggestions for making the upcoming meetings more
productive or useful, or if they had other suggestions regarding the newsletter, or any other
suggestion. There were no comments on the newsletter.

The following recommendations were made for inviting people to upcoming meetings dealing with
specific topics:

Topic

Invite

Livestock Grazing

Red Bluff Experimental Station

Jeff Mosely, MSU

Carl Wambolt, MSU

Staff of Montana's congressional delegation (Baucus, Rehberg, Burns)

Predator

Representatives from the Dept of Livestock, USDA—Wildlife Services Division -try Graeham
McDougal in Grant or his boss (in Billings or Helena)

There were no suggestions for changing the meeting format. (Note, however that one participant
came up after the meeting and requested that there be more focus on providing outreach education to
K-8 public schools about sage grouse issues and conservation)

Follow-up: Cossitt Consulting will compile the work of this group meeting on
conservation actions and begin to provide more detail for assuring that the conservation actions
will measure up to the FWS PECE criteria (Policy for Evaluating Conservation Effectiveness). The
updated version will then be routed to local working group participants for review.